The Corporation, directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, written by Joel Bakan, released in 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument is that corporations are corrupt and are detrimental for society because all they care about is profits, and doesn't take into account ethics, what's best for society or the environment, or the long term future when going after profit. That corporations are deceitful and have a very big influence on how society is organized, and that it is our responsibility to take notice and stand up for our rights as a society.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film goes through the legal aspects of a the corporation, how it acts and why and categorizes a corporation as psychotic, includes interviews from many people with great credentials like Vandana Shiva, Michael Moore, and Ray Anderson to name a few, describes a particular incident where a large corporation Monsanto is caught being unethical and tries covering it up by interfering with the news media, covers collusion between corporations and between corporations and corrupt governments, their advertising schemes, and more. This film did a very good job at showing the different issue involved and forces one to think in terms of systems thinking.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political?
There is a revolving door between industry and government that shouldn't be permissible because it creates conflicting interests. For example, the policy makers and government officials that worked on the laws and regulations around the tobacco industry, after retiring from government they went on to work for the same tobacco companies they used to regulate. This gives the industry inside knowledge on how the regulations are made and creates incentive for people currently in office to be friendly with industry so they have a job later on.
I heard about this issue being discussed by Alan Chartock on NPR, and he said that it really is a hard complex issue. If you think about the kind of resume the government officials will have when they go on to retire, for them it would make sense to go work for the industry they used to work to regulate, but it doesn't make sense for society.
Legal?
Corporations are legally structured, judicially, to maximize its profits to its shareholders, even at the cost to the public good. This comes in the form of externalities, which include not only pollution, but low wages and unfair working conditions as well… basically anything that minimizes costs and maximizes revenue therefore maximizing profits.
Under the 14th Amendment corporations have protection because they claim that THEY are people, and have the same rights as a citizen, even though the 14th Amendment was mean to protect the rights of newly freed slaves. This is a very sly and deceptive way to gain precedents to be able to push their powers passed what corporations were first supposed to have.
The topic of understanding how corporate citizens came about and the comparison to other sentient beings such as animals and their rights were brought up as well, and the issue of the time period that corporate citizens came about and the rights that actual citizens that blacks and women had.
The corporate citizen also allows for breaking the law to be translated to a CBA rather than a moral issue because an actual person won't be put in jailed, the business just pays the fines.
Economic?
Michael Moore also points out how for corporations there is never enough profits, and this reminded me of my Environment and Resource Economics class when Professor Gowdy mentioned that endless consumption and the idea of never having enough isn't universal, rather a largely American ideology.
Technological? Media and Informational?
Michael Moore points out that people actually feel recognition with corporations as if they were actual people with personalities, such as being kind, wise, aggressive, intelligent, etc. The corporations TRY to do this, they try to create an image for themselves to lull the public into thinking of their corporation in a certain way, with a certain bias.
Monsanto came out with the bovine growth hormone (RBGH), and the FDA passed it without looking too in depth at the studies. The studies showed that there weren't enough studies done and that they weren't done long enough to conclude it was safe, so other countries didn't pass it allowing it on the market. Monsanto faxed the news reporters at Fox News, week after week, threatening that they needed to check their facts and if they did air the report there would be "dire consequences". Monsanto gave a lot of advertising money to Fox News , "we just paid 3 billion for these tv stations, we'll tell you what the news is, the news is what we say it is."
The film shows this example of how the news media is being corrupted by the corporate agenda.
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral?
A survey by a corporation found that nagging children increases profits, so they promote this behavior through advertising and marketing. It would be really interesting to research into the effects this has on our society and on the behavior and values children grow up with, what kind of adults and citizens they become. Probably feeds a cycle of commodity zombies (aka: mindless consumer) that create citizens that have blindfolds on to the issues in our society that they should be engaged in solving.
Cultural?
The corporation has very much pushed an agenda onto society so that we continue to be a consumerist society and more is always better. We are losing some core values from our culture because it's being replaced with consumerism and a blind faith in the market, and a blind trust in what businesses tell us. It shouldn't be this way.
Ecological?
I think of the corporation as a mechanical unit involved in and reinforcing the system of capitalism. Capitalism, even just based on principle and theory is bad for the environment because it requires continuous everlasting economic growth. Such economic growth isn't sustainable with the resources provided and it isn't necessary for human survival either. In fact just the opposite is!
The corporations' goal is to maximize profits, which means increasing revenue and reducing costs. That sets the groundwork to motivate business to lie about their product and to ignore regulations. This means massive amounts of pollution and a society ignorant to what they are really doing.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found it very interesting that the film compares corporations to sharks in that neither have ill will, but both are equipped with the tools and characteristics to be a killing machine in the case of the shark and a profit maximizing machine for the corporation. I feel like this is unfair to the shark in all honesty. When you take a step back and look at the bigger picture and ecosystem in which a shark exists, it has a place and a purpose. A shark keeps certain populations of fish under control which in turn has its own cascading effects that keeps a balance within the ecosystem and food chain. How would the bigger purpose and role of a corporation look like if you took a step back and looked at it’s place and effects holistically?
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Someone else in class brought up the college guys and how the film framed them in a way so that you looked down upon corporate supporters and made you put a label on them. The film didn't play devil's advocate well in showing the corporate supporters side, that I presume would have been shown better by certain economists, lobbyists, government officials, etc.
The college guys that told their corporate sponsorship story mentioned at the end of their bit that they have faith in corporations because "they will always be there". That is so illogical and very similar to the thinking of religion that I almost don't want to address it because it is so controversial and personal to so many, and it's hard to breach that communication barrier. I wonder if the film makers did this on purpose as a way to put corporate supporters in a box that is looked down upon by some.
Someone who hears this video talk of 9/11 and of how it was "a blessing in disguise" because the price of gold shot up, so everyone invested in it in the stock market made a lot of money... people who hear that might automatically react to think that this film suggests a conspiracy theory behind 9/11. Someone who just takes a step back and look at that sentence and thinks about motives for 9/11 then they might think that the US was somehow involved in the planning of that horrific event. Now we did play a role in which people hate America, and the US won't be liked by everyone, and there are terrorists, etc. so I'm not giving the idea of that conspiracy theory any credit, but I believe the way in which this topic was filmed and approached can be harmful to the purpose of this film because if you cause your audience to think and react like that it could completely turn them off to the film and make them want to discredit you as crazy. This is a perfect example of where that fine line exists where film makers and environmentalists and anyone really who is trying to get an idea or argument across needs to be aware of, not to cross the line where you will turn your audience away from or even against you.
The fact that Moore only has author and film maker in his description bothers me because that doesn't explain that what kind of films he makes or the point of view he comes from, so it makes me question the descriptions of the other people speaking in this film.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I would say this film does NOT address business owners or business students well at all, really anyone who believes in the market economy and capitalism. I think that in order to be open to understanding and hearing out what the film makers are trying to argue here then you have to be open to the concept that our economy isn't efficient, that the system is in fact broken. So the audience best addresses the people in society that pay close attention to how industry and corporations influence society just through the news and media, and I think there are more people that notice than many think.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I feel a discussion involving discourse analysis could have improved this film. (Might already be included and I may have missed it though.) I say this because I know from reading other material that when corporations and businesses use greenwashing techniques to claim that they're being socially responsible that it can have a changing affect to how "socially responsible" is viewed by others. I was suprised recently to find that some people view CSR as a gimmick and others view it as one of the phases a company goes through on their way to becoming sustainable, that they are trying, but they don't "quite get the sustainability thing yet".
Another thing that could have enhanced the environmental educational value is to show that there are people within the corporate world that do "get it" and are now trying to catch up in understanding what they can do, and they pitted against their colleagues at work with trying to convey the sustainability message. There is a big social issue here, very much like pathway dependency, that prevents people within the corporate world from being able to do more because they could get back-lash, get fired, be labeled as something almost as if they are blacklisted.... it's like a business stigma.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
I feel that the movie could have done more to tell the audience what could be done to start pushing through change in our economic system and businesses. It didn't really mention alternatives like B-Corporations, but did mention CSR (corporate social responsibility), but only as a green washing technique rather than what it is also perceived as by the business owners themselves.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I have been reading The Next Sustainability Wave by Bob Willard, and it's purpose is to help convince CEO's and business owners alike to to join in practicing sustainability, and explains the reasons why they should in their own terms.
After watching this I looked further into Noam Chomsky and watched Manufacturing Consent.
Now I am starting to read a book by Rummler and Bache about the organization of a corporation and business and how to improve efficiency, and I am reading it because I am noticing that a lot of ways a business can be more environmentally sustainable is if they are just overall more efficient. So I am looking at how their theories of business structure and organization can be applied to implementing sustainability practices.
Notes on the movie
I like how in the beginning of the film it starts out with people almost speaking highly of corporations and their ability to succeed and grow and how they benefit society, almost as though they were in awe of it. But then a guy starts laughing and goes “Okay, enough of this bullshit!” This shows the absurdity in believing in those notions, pokes fun at it almost.
The kind of person a corporation is a psychotic: - so who takes the moral responsibility for its actions?
Deceitfulness: repetitive lying to people in order to increase profits
Incapacity to experience guilt
callous unconcern for others
reckless disregard for others safety
I was seriously impressed that this video included Vandana Shiva because she is someone who isn't just involved with issues with corporations but with generative justice and other economic issues as well.
Ray Anderson happened to come across Paul Hauken's book, "The Ecology of Commerce" when a team in his company was calling on him to give an environmental mission speech when he didn't have an environmental mission or vision. Reading that book made him do a complete 180 and he changed his company Interface.
Monsanto situation:
So the manager asked the reporter to not tell anyone, or he'll fire them, but reporter's said they'd sue b/c that's illegal firing
week later, manager offered to bribe them so that they would never talk about it to anyone ever again
they tricked him into writing up that bribe agreement, but didn't sign it so that now they had proof and would go to the press with the story now
after review processes, 83x of review where they would replace or minimize any damaging wording for Monsanto, they were fired not without cause, but because they stood up to them on the story so they fired them. That proves retaliation, so the reporters gained the whistleblower status so they could come out with the story and proof
The collusion of companies in working with Germany during the Holocaust
Coke made Fanta in order to sell to the Nazis
IBM made the punch card system for the Nazis to record and systemize the prisoners in the camps during the Holocaust
corporate social responsibility
might just want to be identified and seen to be responsible
it's a voluntary tactic, a certain reaction to the market right now
who are the corporations to decide what's socially responsible anyway? it's not really their expertise
these decisions should be made by gov't and not by corporations
Class Discussion
Issues of free speech and corporations is very interesting because of "is money speech" and at what point does what corporations cover up considered censorship.
There is a big issue in our society with how we pay people in whatever their job position is without creating a conflicting interest for that person. For example, if cops are paid on a basis of how much crime they clean up and arrest creates an incentive for them to make sure they find crime, and there was that instance near Albany recently that a bunch of cops were caught planting and distributing drugs in order to clean it up and make themselves look good afterwards, and they made a lot of money off of that. Reminds me of the revolving door between industry and government and the issues of how someone is salaried based on their results within a short timeline, versus a longer timescale that would benefit the company and the environment.
Sust Problems – The Corporation
1. Title, director and release year?
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political?
Legal?
Economic?
Technological?
Media and Informational?
Organizational?
Educational? Behavioral?
Cultural?
Ecological?
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
Notes on the movie
Class Discussion